Jason Resch writes:

> > Jason Resch writes:
> >
> >My appologies to those on this list, this is how I should have worded
> >my conclusion:
> >Positive spared lives = Take replication
> >Neutral spared lives = Take coin flip
> >Negative spared lives = Take coin flip

[SP]
> This is an analysis from an altruistic viewpoint, i.e. which choice will 
> increase
> the net happiness in the world. What I am asking is the selfish question, what
> should I do to avoid being tortured? If I choose the replication it won't 
> worry
> me from a selfish point of view if one person will definitely be tortured 
> because
> I am unlikely to be that person. Indeed, after the replication it won't 
> affect me
> if *all* the other copies are tortured, because despite sharing the same 
> psychology
> up to the point of replication, I am not going to experience their pain.

[JR]
> I think our disagreement stems from our different conceptions of 
> consciousness.  You seem to believe that once you experience an observer 
> moment, that you are destined to experience all future observer moments of 
> that observer.  While this is the way most people see the world, I consider 
> that to be an illusion caused by memory.  i.e. "We remember past observer 
> moments so we must be moving into the future."
> I believe that its is just as beneficial to do something that will improve 
> someone else's observer moments as it is to improve one's future observer 
> moments. Just think: your current observer moment never gets to experience 
> the fruits of its current labors, it remains in that observer moment for all 
> time.  Yet we still go to work.  That is why altruism is indistinguishable 
> from selfish behavior in my philosophy.  There is no consciousness outside of 
> brain states, brain states are consciousness, since they exist they are 
> experienced, no one can say by who or by what, their existance is experience. 
>  Therefore it is in everyone's interest to improve reality's first person, of 
> which every observer moment is a part.
> It's easy to see how evolution taught us to work for one individual's future 
> observer moments, we defer gratification all time in order to increase the 
> average quality of all future observer moments.  I'm not advocating we all 
> become like Mother Teresa, but I think we should understand that we are no 
> more (or less) our future observer moments than we are other individual's 
> observer moments.

I completely agree with your view of observer moments: the person who wakes up 
in my bed tomorrow won't be me-now, he'll just be someone who shares most of my 
memories and believes he is me. In fact, if I were killed with an axe during 
the night 
and replaced with an exact copy, it wouldn't make any difference to me or 
anyone 
else, because I "die" every moment anyway. But the problem is, I am very 
attached to 
the illusion of continuity of conscious and personal identity even though I 
know how it 
is generated. If I give in to it, I might decide to treat everyone the same as 
I do myself, 
but just as likely I might decide to be completely reckless with my life, or 
even with 
everyone else's life. But my brain just won't let me think this way. 

Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to